An Oxford graduate student by day and a scientific activist by night, Nick Anthis isn't letting his Ph.D. research in protein structure get in the way of defending scientific and social progress.
The Animal Research War
by P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker
Palgrave Macmillan: 2008, 224 pages.
Buy now! (Amazon)
In a dark room, buried in a nondescript building somewhere in London, an orderly array of new trainees sits silently, listening intently as a senior police official delivers a security briefing. Clicking through slide after slide of photos of activists, extremists, and terrorists, the official carefully explains who each person is, what organization(s) he or she is associated with, and what level of threat that person poses. All of this would probably look like business as usual if security is your day job. But, this audience isn't made up of new police recruits: these are first-year graduate students, attending a course that's mandatory to conduct animal research in the UK.
Of course, this security briefing is just a small part of this course, which in part fulfills the requirements set by the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. More fundamental to its mission is the training these students will receive in animal handling and welfare--one of the many safeguards put in place in the UK, like in the US and elsewhere, to ensure that animal research is carried out as humanely as possible. However, if one considers that just 60 miles down the road, in Oxford--where many of these students will be carrying out their graduate research--animal rights extremists are a real threat to animal researchers and anyone associated with them, this whole endeavor seems a little less outlandish.
Until it was completed just a few months ago, construction workers at the new biomedical research building in Oxford arrived and left each day by secret convoy and wore full face masks to protect their identities. The menacing grey barrier that they worked behind--complete with razor wire and anti-climb pain--still stands today, long after completion. Throughout the work, the identity of building's contractor was a closely-guarded secret (the original contractor had pulled out, stalling construction for 16 months).
As reactionary as this may appear, it's just a rational response to a constant barrage of intimidation at Oxford that has at times escalated to arson and letter bombs. And, although Oxford has become a focal point for the animal rights movement, it's far from unique, as demonstrated by the tales told in The Animal Research War, coauthored by P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker. "War" might sound like a strong word to use here, but after reading account after account of intimidation and destruction, it's clear that the animal rightists are fighting a one-sided campaign of terror--publicly painting animal researchers as profit-driven sadists and destroying reputations, lives' works, and millions of dollars of property in the process.
Delivering this narrative are scientist P. Michael Conn and communicator James V. Parker, both of the Oregon National Primate Research Center. Conn opens the book with his own tale of intimidation faced at the hands of animal rights extremists. As associate director of the Primate Research Center, he has been a constant target of animal rightists. In the opening vignette, he is rushed onto a plane after being followed to the boarding gate by angry activists. These same activists had just launched a coordinated campaign of lies and intimidation that had derailed his finalist interview for an administration position at the University of South Florida. As the authors go on to demonstrate, Conn's experience is not unusual and is even relatively minor compared to some.
A common tactic of the animal rights extremists is to take the fight to the researchers' homes, involving their families and neighbors. They publicize the scientists' personal information, target their neighbors with misinformation designed to turn them against the researchers, hold disruptive demonstrations in front of their houses, and even deliver death threats to them and their families.
These actions have consequences, and the activists have sometimes succeeded in getting researchers to drop promising avenues of research--in hopes that they can once again lead normal lives. Each of these might be a "victory" for the animal rights movement, but each is a loss for the countless others who might have one day benefited from that research, from AIDS patients to stroke victims and everyone in between. And, this is isn't even as bad as it gets, as UCLA researcher Edythe London found out this year, when in the span of less than four months her house was attacked twice--first by flooding then by arson.
These aren't the actions of a few isolated individuals, but are instead the product of an intricate and interconnected web of different animal rights organizations. The authors devote a significant portion of this book to making sense of this web, and they show that the web sometimes reaches into high places--like money flowing directly from PETA to the ecoterrorist organization ELF (Earth Liberation Front), for example. And, I believe that it is here and in the stories of the researchers targeted by these organizations where the true value of The Animal Research War lies. Scientists need to know what they're up against, and any potential sympathizers of these organizations should be aware of just what they're supporting.
Another important contribution that this book makes is that from the outset, the authors make the very important distinction between animal welfare and animal rights. Although these two terms are all too frequently used interchangeably (and I'll admit that I've even fallen into this trap on occasion), they have very distinct meanings. Animal welfare describes our responsibility to care for animals in a way that minimizes pain and suffering. This is a fundamental value in our society that only true deviants would stray from. Animal rights, on the other hand, describe an extreme ideology postulating that animals possess inherent rights and that humans should not use animals for any purpose, including for food, clothing, transportation, or research. Although I haven't stressed the importance of language and terminology as much as I should, in my previous writing I have made the related point that animal rights activists are not concerned with improving the conditions of laboratory animals, but instead their goal is to eliminate animal research altogether. It's not that they place a particular significance on animal research as opposed to the use of animals for food--it's just that animal research is an easier target. Regardless, confusion of animal rights and animal welfare plays into the hand of the animal rights activists, equating their extreme goals with values we all share. The authors made a good choice in emphasizing the importance of language and terminology from the start, and it's certainly something that all of us--myself included--should be cognizant of.
Beyond this, The Animal Research War goes on to explore the philosophical underpinnings of the animal rights movement, to make the case for animal research, and to tackle some common misperceptions. Interlaced throughout is commentary that at times seems unnecessary--especially in the discussion highlighted above about the tactics of the animal rights extremists, where their actions tend to speak for themselves. Despite this, the book is still well-worth a read, especially if you're interested in some of the topics often discussed here. And, if you're not so familiar with the topic, hopefully at the very least a picture will emerge of researchers motivated dually by a love of discovery and a desire to alleviate human--and animal--suffering being unfairly targeted by an organized and underhanded movement that destroys reputations as well as property and at times severely hinders important scientific work.
Although there are few positives in a discussion of animal rights extremism, the authors end on an optimistic note: Pro-Test. In response to the intimidation described at the beginning of this post, the grassroots organization Pro-Test rose up in 2006 and has organized several successful and effective marches in support of animal research. It certainly helped change the tide against the animal rightists in a very palpable way here in Oxford, and hopefully it will serve as a model elsewhere. Although the authors of The Animal Research War focus only on Laurie Pycroft, the founder of Pro-Test, I think it's important to acknowledge that there were many people that helped make Pro-Test a success. Among those were Tom Holder, who's now advocating for animal research in the US and many, many others, including several students and a handful of Oxford scientists (you can see the bios of the current committee here). If there is a bright spot in the animal research war, it's what Pro-Test has done in Oxford, and just as Conn and Parker ended their book there, hopefully similar actions will help bring the conflicts elsewhere a little bit closer to peaceful resolution as well.
Sphere: Related Content
Education & Careers
Politics
Comments
A timely piece Nick considering some of the recent attacks on scientists in the USA.
It's worth noting that in the UK AR extremist attacks have dropped sharply in the past few years. This is perhaps mostly as a result of the police, courts and lawmakers getting their act together, but also I suspect because organizations such as Pro-Test, and the favorable reaction they got from press and public, showed them that extremism would backfire and hurt their cause.
Anyone who wants to do something to remedy the situation should consider contacting Speaking of Research http://www.speakingofresearch.org/. While the gut reflex to terror and extremism may be to go out and buy a gun, a far better response would be for scientists and supporters of science to back the scientists who are being targeted by the extremists, not just in private but on the streets, in newspapers and on the web!
Posted by: Paul | July 8, 2008 9:30 AM
A fascinating book by all accounts. However, I think it is worth pointing out that the problems that scientists face from extremists in the USA are no longer prevalent in the UK. A combination of better laws, improved policing, prosecutions of hard line activists, as well as communications and support activities that have helped to bolster resilience within research institutions, means that animal rights extremism has all but faded in the UK. I say 'all but' because if you are in Oxford there is still some extremist activity there.
Posted by: Barbara | July 8, 2008 9:35 AM
Thank you very much for a quick look at this book. It seems interesting and impacts me directly, so I look forward to reading it and spreading the message.
Posted by: Steve | July 8, 2008 9:54 AM
I've read and enjoyed "the animal research war" - an interesting looks at many components of the animal rights movement including an in depth look at some of the key players and organisations.
Tom
Posted by: Tom | July 8, 2008 10:03 AM
Good article. It does show that violence and intimidation can be beaten by standing up to the thugs. Many people support animal based research, but have been threatened into silence. Hopefully more can speak out in favour of research in the future.
Posted by: Kevin | July 8, 2008 11:22 AM
What a great book. A call to action. I ordered one for each of my kids school libraries! More should speak out.
Posted by: Terri | July 8, 2008 12:05 PM
This is an important topic and you described it well. I want to mention some other organizations that help researchers continue their work. These are the National Association for Biomedical Research and the Northwest Association for Biomdedical Research.
Posted by: Sandra Porter | July 8, 2008 1:33 PM
THE ANIMAL RESEARCH WAR book and the organization, SPEAKING OF RESEARCH give me a sense of hope.
Posted by: jeri | July 8, 2008 2:01 PM
I think this book tends to forget the victims here are the animals! Period.
Posted by: Linda Carey | July 8, 2008 2:13 PM
This article is completely disingenuous. The book cover art shows the Garden of Eden. Please have the decency to call a spade a spade, show a picture of an animal in a lab.
Most of this research if futile and ineffective, wasting precious resources on wanna-be doctors egos and fears. Publish of perish; at any cost, especially to animals. Those researchers with an inch of compassion will be ashamed of what they have done.
Put live cams in these labs, let us see the animals and how they are treated. Then I will believe a word of the supposed humane treatment; because all images I've seen so far show Auschwitz for all those unfortunate enough to be non-humans at the hands of 'scientists'.
I thought scientists were cerebral. That should mean you question everything, and then question the answers. Surprisingly, all I see is the young following in the footsteps of the old, making no improvement or innovation. For shame.
This whole article lives in the past. Look for solutions that benefit all, going forward, instead of sinking money into an antiquated system of nonchalant cruelty.
The new testing movement for non-animal based research is already underway and many methods have already been approved in the EU (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/epaa/). The US is significantly behind with approved alternatives, but there are signs of hope. Furthermore, this will provide real solutions faster to those sick and in need. There are many alternatives if there is a will and desire to do better. Efficacy and efficiency will be served, with the added benefit of not sacrificing compassion.
It's time scientists learn to think for themselves. Preferably with a heart.
Posted by: Neda | July 8, 2008 3:19 PM
If the research was so futile and ineffective then how do you suppose all the research breakthroughs have come about? Are you suggesting that all of biology is null and void due to its reliance on animals as subjects of study?
Posted by: Steve | July 8, 2008 4:02 PM
By the way, I would gladly show anyone how I treat my animals because I know I take very good care of them. Hell, they probably get better treatment from me then most children do from their parents in this country.
Posted by: Steve | July 8, 2008 4:06 PM
LULZ ANIMAL ACTIVISTS.
You'd apparently sacrifice several human lives just to save an animal.
Get your fucking priorities straight.
Posted by: Katharine | July 8, 2008 10:42 PM
This is a really intense issue for me. I feel extremely strongly for both sides here. On one, I've been a vegitarian for over ten years now and see the current treatment of animals in our societies as an extension of the long tradition of seeing other creature as merely SUB-human in every way. On the other hand, I can't tell you how dissapointed it makes me to see activists resorting to violence and tactics that may lead to MORE overall suffering (ie that of the researchers, and those who would benefit from thier potential breakthroughs).
I think I feel guilty and disillusioned twice at the same time. For being willing to cause non-human animals suffering for POSSIBLE future net-benefits, and for strongly sympathizing with the animal right's supporters. In reality, I would need to do much more study to flush out these beliefs and my stances more fully. Like how much of the research really leads to ending human (or animal) suffering? And what kind of suffering do these lab animals have to endure?
By the way, I don't think the distinction between "animal rights" and "welfare" is nearly as clear-cut as the author would make it seem. Everything is shades of gray. Also, I love Neda's idea of putting cams in all slaughter-houses and research facilities, its occured to me too. And even if it would reveal trade-secrets, how about a just a government entity to review the footage and regularly release their findings?
Posted by: Eloheim | July 9, 2008 2:53 AM
Many people decide they are for experimentation without thinking about it in any great detail. Are you pro vivisection or only drug research? Are you pro cosmetic tesing? Do you know the differences? What if we were the ones being forced to smoke or having 3rd degree burns inflicted on us to study a new ointment? Then would we want alternatives? How would we feel confined with no hope of ever feeling the sun or the wind on our faces? Animals have a nervous system and a brain too. They have adapted over millions of years to run and play and form social groups. Animals are capable of pain and of love. Anyone who has ever loved a pet knows that animals recognize those they trust and those who have harmed them and they feel happiness as well as loss and sadness. Immagine being a living feeling creature in a cage with no hope of escape,with only the certainty that someone who does not care will come every day to hurt you again. Isen't this really the issue? The scientists say they minimize pain for the animals but how much pain would you be willing to endure? How many electodes implanted in your brain to study motor funtion would be ok? Have you read some of the stuff they do? Deprive puppies of a balanced diet to study the effects of malnutrition. Is there anyone still out there who does not know a deficient diet is harmful? When will it have been studied enough? We humans fear getting a vaccination or a blood test because it might hurt; immagine if we had to endure sleeping in a stainless steel cage with no other living creature to cuddle up to and with nothing to think about except pain and fear? Dogs cuddle together, so do cats, so do rats, they seek companionship and a feeling of safety. Mental and physical torture that is what experimentation is for the animal. As humans we are capable of feeling empathy, why is it that so few of us do? If you were waiting all alone for the next forced feeding or invasive proceedure with no hope for escape would you really think that it was worth it? Ask yourself honestly, if you were the one who had to pay the price of pain and suffering would you still think it was so great? I hope more people will read up on the unnecessary repetition of experiments, on the fact that many drugs are harmless to animals and then go on to harm people. We have evolved, we can use better alternatives, we just have to be willing to let go of old outdated practices. I think everyone owes it to themselves to look at this issue from both sides with an open mind and ask themselves the difficult questions. I leave each of you to your own conscience.
Posted by: Think about it | July 9, 2008 2:58 AM
In regards to Eloheim's comment, the placement of camera's in animal research facilities would certainly be an extreme and unusual step, although it's not an idea without some merit, I suppose. However, you have to realize that these facilities already undergo inspections to insure that they are operating within the current law.
Posted by: Nick Anthis | July 9, 2008 3:39 AM
Thanks for the review, I'm going to put this book on my amazon wishlist.
I'm an animal welfare activist myself, and I absolutely hate being lumped together with people like the ALF or PETA. While the latter doesn't engage in terrorism, I still find a lot of their propaganda tactics pretty vile - for example, still using that stupid "animal testing for cosmetics zomg!!!" strawman, even though that's been outlawed over here since 1998 (I live in Germany, and yes, this tactic has been used by the German PETA).
I'm quite proud of the fact that over the years, I've managed to turn a number of people away from those shrill, sensationalist extremists and towards organizations that have a more balanced view of the issues at hand, be it animal testing, farming, zoos, or conservation efforts.
Posted by: Darwin's Minion | July 9, 2008 4:35 AM
Neda, your missing an important point. Most "vivisectionists" actually spend most of their time using non-animal methods, human clinical studies, genetic research, cell and tissue culture based methods etc. Animals continue to be used because they can provide important information that the other methods can't provide (the opposite is also often true). When non-animal methods can replace animal methods in research they do so, though of course as with any new scientific method there is often a period of debate while the capabilities and limitations of the new and old method are compared, complete replacement is often not possible.
Animal research accounts for about 10% (perhaps less) of the total biomedical research effort in the UK, but surveys indicate that over 90% of doctors and scientists believe that it makes an important contribution to medical advancement.
On the issue of toxicity/safety testing (which accounts for about 15% of animals used) there is no doubt that much more will be done in vitro in future, the knowledge and technology to allow this is advancing steadily, though some animal testing will almost certainly be required for some decades yet. What is important is to not confuse such regulatory testing with research; research is by its nature far more open ended and due to the uncertainties involved far more difficult to replace with in vitro testing.
Believe me scientists do have hearts, it's one reason why many of us choose a career in medical research. If we really were heartless law would have been a more lucrative career choice.
Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 4:52 AM
Linda Carey. Absolutely. I have never heard a pro consider the suffering of the animals. I think that speaks volumes.
Steve. Neda is perfectly right. Testing on animals has repeatedly shown to be futile and ineffective. What about all the drugs that keep being withdrawn after passing as 'safe' on animals? Animals are completely different to us in many ways. There are always regular reports of very serious side effects caused in humans by relying on the way animals responded, The drug Vioxx and the ongoing court cases is just one example. I would call that ineffective. In fact I would call that very worrying. People have been maimed because of animal tests.
It depends on what your idea is of 'taking care' is, doesnt it? Keeping an animal imprisoned in a cage and removing it to experiment on it and killing it at the end of the process is far removed from taking care of it! To state that any animal held in a lab and experimented on is taken care of, is an insult to a persons intelligence. Or maybe confirmation of yours if you think that everyone will believe that ridiculous idea.
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 7:34 AM
Katharine, bit of a knee jerk reacion?
I didn't see where Neda had said she/he would "sacrifice several human lives to save an animal". That's just your perception as she/he spoke of non animal testing and about other testing methods that are already underway. That is perfectly true, some intelligent and innovative scientists have found better, more accurate and relevant methods of testing instead of using animals.
I don't believe that it is even logical to consider using a different species let alone think that we have the god given right to do so just because animals do not have the power of speech. I don't think it would ever have begun if animals could talk. I think it is such a low act of mankind. It has been called a 'necessary evil' by pros (if anything can ever be called that) but it is being proven more and more to be not necessary just evil.
Incidentally, it's a pity you chose not to comment on the interesting facts in Neda's posting.
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 7:53 AM
Lindy:
Consider, for a moment, the aims of most of those experiments. Most of them attempt to learn about some aspect of the human body or animal body that we would not know without these animals.
There are methods of experimentation that are possible without animals. However, in some experiments, an in situ test is required, and rodents, for example, are the most genetically similar animals to humans without experimenting on primates (I am pro-animal experimentation, but I do not like experimentation on great apes). The issue is far more ethically complex than most animal activists seem to be aware of - the IRBs at my university, for example (we have multiple IRBs to oversee animal care) are extremely strict about maintaining proper animal care. (The Harlow Primate Laboratory, however, is a special case, and one that I'm not completely familiar with, but pictures I've seen of the inside of the lab seem to indicate that the rhesus monkeys are getting along fine)
How much have you read of institutional protocols for animal research? How much have you read of what we science people have accomplished by doing animal research?
Neda had absolutely no interesting points. We're already developing what alternatives we can develop, but nothing replaces organisms.
Posted by: Katharine | July 9, 2008 8:49 AM
Your comment that "The issue is far more ethically complex than most animal activists seem to realise" is typical and fails to recognise that activists include scientists, doctors, surgeons, professors, ex-vivisectors and various other experts in the field who have got facts and information from being directly involved. It is a misconception that animal activists are made up of the general public who do not possess any factual evidence. This could not be further from the truth. In any case any individual can search on the internet and find factual evidence for themselves from a whole array of sources including scientific journals. A Director of a testing facility stated that animal testing was only accurate 5 -25% of the time. I don't like those odds.
Of course they are not getting along fine. Confined in a cage instead of in their natural habitat, and being experimented on and you describe that as fine? It only takes a little common sense to know that that is impossible for them to be fine! Would you like it? would you be getting along fine? That's absurd. When you say things as ridiculous as that I am afraid it does not inspire any confidence about anything else that you have to say.
You seem somewhat detached to say the least.
Let's talk about some failures of vivisection. There are some very interesting sites about that. Thalidomide was devastating and maimaed people after 'passing' animal tests. It is extremely worrying that you don't acknowledge that there can be very real dangers to the public from animal testing. You appear to be completely ignoring the negative side of animal testing.
I have looked into this subject thoroughly and I have found information that 'researchers' (I do not regard testing on animals as research or science for that matter) have claimed successes from animal testing when in fact the discovery had been found in other ways. I believe that it is inevitable that we will abandon animal testing, it has already started to happen in some forward thinking areas.
Incidentally, have you seen any animals cry, struggle, bite, fret, shake, scream, vomit, become violently ill etc etc? Do you restrain them in devices to stop them from moving while you 'work' on them? Sounds lovely.
I am afraid Neda did make very good points, thats why you lost your temper and resorted to abuse and swearing.
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 10:20 AM
Lindy, just because animal testing can't identify all toxicities it doesn't follow that the testing is futile. Phase I and phase II clinical trials (and even Phase III) don't identify all toxicities, so should we scrap them too?
Vioxx is a good example, it lead to an increase in heart attacks, but overall the number of heart attacks among trial participants was still low, if I remember correctly the instance doubled from just over 1% to just over 2%, a difference that's highly unlikely to show up in pre-clinical animal testing. Rather ironically the earliest evidence for a cardiovascular risk associated with COX-2 inhibitors came from studies published in 1997 which showed that deletion of the prostacyclin gene in mice was associated with increases thrombosis, which was a concern as one of the main effects of COX-2 inhibition is to lower prostacyclin levels. By 2003 several animal studies had indicated that COX-2 inhibitors could increase the risk of heart attack e.g.
Hennan J.K. Et al. “Effects of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition on vascular responses and thrombosis in canine coronary arteries.”Circulation. 2001 Aug 14;104(7):820-5. PMID: 11502709
"In celecoxib-treated animals, vasodilation in response to arachidonic acid was reduced significantly compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate important physiological roles for COX-2-derived prostacyclin and raise concerns regarding an increased risk of acute vascular events in patients receiving COX-2 inhibitors. The risk may be increased in individuals with underlying inflammatory disorders, including coronary artery disease."
Of course by then the COX-2 inhibitors had been in widespread use for some time. With the benefit of hindsight it would have been useful to test the COX-2s in animal models of heart disease (where their tendency to increase the rate of heart attacks would have been clear), but hindsight is a wonderful thing. I certainly think that it's foolish to blame tests that were not performed for not identifying a problem. I'm also not aware of any in-vitro tests that could have predict the prothrombotic effects of the COX-2s, at least not without the supporting evidence from animal studies that linked low prostacyclin levels to heart attacks. At least now new anti-inflammatory drugs can be screened for their effect on the cardiovascular system prior to human trials.
None of us on the "Pro-Test" side think that animal testing is magic, like all scientific techniques it has its strengths and weaknesses, and is dependent on good experimental design. We also do care about animals, I'm a member of several conservation charities and support better welfare for laboratory animals, it's got a lot better in recent decades but there's still room for improvement.
Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 10:28 AM
Lindy, I find your latest comment particularly inaccurate. I have had quite a bit of face time with both scientists and animal rights activists. During those many, many encounters, I have never--I repeat, never--personally come across a person belonging to both groups. Now, I don't mean to say that there don't exist any scientists who are animal rights activists--I'm sure they do exist. However, they must be exceedingly rare, and they certainly do not exist in the numbers that you imply.
Also, you say that "animal testing was only accurate 5-25% of the time." What does that even mean? You need to provide some context and some references, rather than just throwing meaningless numbers around. Besides, this focus on "animal testing" that animal rightists generally adopt misses the point and displays their fundamental misconceptions about the scientific process. Sure, drugs are "tested" on animals, but that's not the main contribution of animal research. Instead, it's in unlocking the basic biology. This is a very significant factor, and it means that for virtually any drug on the market, animal research at some point contributed significantly to its development. And, this would make even more irrelevant whatever numbers you're throwing around about animal testing being inaccurate.
Posted by: Nick Anthis | July 9, 2008 10:43 AM
Lindy "Let's talk about some failures of vivisection. There are some very interesting sites about that. Thalidomide was devastating and maimaed people after 'passing' animal tests. It is extremely worrying that you don't acknowledge that there can be very real dangers to the public from animal testing. You appear to be completely ignoring the negative side of animal testing."
Thalidomide did initially pass safety tests in animals but this was because the proper tests were not performed: thalidomide was not tested on pregnant animals. If a thorough battery of tests had been performed in animals, the teratogenic effects would have been caught. Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the USA because the Food and Drug Administration felt that not enough testing had been carried out. After its withdrawal from the market, thalidomide was tested on pregnant animals and found to induce birth defects in mice, rats, hamsters, marmosets and baboons if administered during the sensitive period (see citations below). If these tests on animals had been carried out, the disaster would have been averted. So the thalidomide example so beloved of anti-vivisectionists turns out to be an argument in favour of more animal testing, not less -- which is why it is now a legal requirement to test all drugs on pregnant animals. It was the absence of rigorous animal testing that led to this human tragedy. Banning animal testing would create similar disasters on a staggeringly frequent basis.
Despite decades of research there is still no in vitro test available that can demonstrate the teratogenic effects of Thalidomide!
Further reading:
D. A. Blake, G. B. Gordon, & S.P. Spielberg, 'The role of metabolic activation in thalidomide teratogenesis', Teratology 25: 2 (1982), pp. 28A-29A.
J. A. DiPaolo, 'Congenital Malformation in Strain A Mice: Its Experimental Production by Thalidomide', Journal of the American Medical Association, 183 (1963), pp.139-141.
F. Homburger, S. Chaube, M. Eppenberger, P. D. Bogdonoff & and C.W. Nixon, 'Susceptibility of Certain Inbred Strains of Hamsters to Teratogenic Effects of Thalidomide', Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 7:5 (1965), pp. 686-69.
W. J. Hamilton & D. E. Poswillo, 'Limb Reduction Anomalies Induced in the Marmoset by Thalidomide', Journal of Anatomy 11 (1972), pp. 505-50.
A. G. Hendrick, L. R. Axelrod & L. D. Clayborn, 'Thalidomide Syndrome in Baboons', Nature, 210 (1966), pp. 958-95.
C. T. G. King CTG & F. J. Kendrick, 'Teratogenic Effects of Thalidomide in the Sprague Dawley Rat', The Lancet vol. ii (1962), p. 1116.
S. V. Rajkumar, 'Thalidomide: Tragic Past and Promising Future' Mayo Clinic Procedures 79:7 (2004).
Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 10:54 AM
Very convenient for the old cognitive dissonance that animal research turns out to be of no benefit to human health, and that evil scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to hide this truth.
Otherwise we'd be forced to face the more nuanced ethical dilemma of weighing up human health against animal suffering.
Posted by: pj | July 9, 2008 1:03 PM
I read "The Animal Research War" and loved it-- both for the writing style and the extensive referencing. It debunks, with references, the claims that animal research is valueless and shows how words taken from context can be made to lie. It discusses oversight and regulation of research and explains the steps that researchers MUST go to in order to minimize the use of animals and their pain in research. Lastly, the cover is not the GARDEN OF EDEN as suggested above --but a painting in which the artist shows the fallacy of the unrealistic "perfection" of nature. Its time a book like this was written-- I am sick of the PeTA garbage that they are giving out in schools. Maybe a ittle balance would be good!
Posted by: Tammy | July 9, 2008 1:35 PM
Nick Anthis, it is not inaccurate, I think you misinterpreted it. When I spoke of scientists, doctors, surgeons, professors, ex-vivisectors I wasn't meaning in BOTH fields at the same time. They are far from exceedingly rare, you know that, I think you are trying to fool us. There are professional organisations that exist that consists of all these professional and knowledgable people. Europeans for Medical progress, Dr Hadwens Trust, Lord Dowding Fund, Safer medicines etc etc... Respectable organisations working towards a better future where mankind does not abuse sentient animals. These knowledgable experts state that animal testing is not only MISLEADING but that it has DELAYED medical progress. The facts on this can be found on the internet. See Vivisection is Absurd for a comprehensive listing.
The facts about the following and more, can all be found on reputable sites on the internet...
Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% therefore never affect animals.
(When diseases are reproduced in animals they are artifical).
95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading "because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans" 88% of doctors agreed.
Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be 50% effective, and therefore more accurate.
Rodents do not get carcinomas, the human form of cancer which affects membranes, (eg lung cancer) Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue, the two are completely different.
The results from animal experiments can be altered by trivial factors such as diet and bedding and stress.
Attempts to sue the manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that "data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients"
Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin can be proved safe by animal tests.
According to a far reaching study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.
A World Health Organisation study showed children were 14 times more likely to develop measles if they had been vaccinated.
In America 100,000 deaths a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people were hospitalised by medical treatment.
40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
"The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals" The great Dr Hadwen noted "had animal experiments been relied upon ... humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia"
Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug) cancer treatments, insulin (which causes animal birth defects) penicillin and other safe medicines, They would be banned if vivisecionn were heeded.
When the producers of Thalidomide faced court, they were aquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied upon for human medicine.
At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
At least 33 animals die in labs per second worldwide.
The Director of Research Defence Socety (which serves to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been acheived without animal use. His written reply was "I am sure it could be"
Source: Vivisection information network
This is a small sample of facts. I urge every member of the public to look into it thoroughly. It's vitally important to you. I stay away from the medicines that are developed this way. I support reseach that is relevant to humans.
You wouldnt go and see a vet about your illnesses, would you?
Animal testing will definitely be banned. Too many learned people are speaking out against it and I believe that it will not go ignored. It's not wise to ignore it and continue with what is basically an archaic practice.
Why doesn't anybody write and let us all know in detail what it is exactly that you do the animals? It is never spoken about, why is that? Be open about it and let the public judge your 'work'.
Oh and you got this wrong as well, It wasn't ME that said it, I did put that I was quoting (Actually it was a former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences who said animal tests and human results agree "5 - 25% of the time")
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 2:08 PM
Paul,
Isn't Merckk, that developed Vioxx, facing court cases from approximately 60,000 people? That is your idea of a good example of how animal testing is working?
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 2:16 PM
Lindy,
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't have a background in science. Am I correct?
Posted by: Nick Anthis | July 9, 2008 2:20 PM
Paul, You said "the proper tests weren't performed" for thalidomide. ha ha ha
Yes, I have heard that response a few times, Is that supposed to be a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the tragedy?
If there is a difference in how species react, which there clearly was, testing should be reviewed, not increased or done differently because you will still be doing these other 'proper' tests on the same animal that has already shown to react differently than humans do in the first place. Where is the sense in that?
I wonder if any of you would feel differently if someone in your family had been deformed by it?
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 2:31 PM
Nick anthis - So.... and your point is? I get my factual information from people that do have a great deal of knowledge, and that is perfectly adequate. some of them may have more knowledge than you..... how about that!
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 2:36 PM
So.... and your point is? I get my factual information from people that do have a great deal of knowledge, and that is perfectly adequate. some of them may have more knowledge than you..... how about that!
It sounds to me like you're working off a collection of "facts" and cheap shots that you've received via email forwards. Why not post your sources for your claims, as other commenters have done?
Posted by: dzd | July 9, 2008 2:42 PM
That's what I thought. Looking at what you write from a scientific viewpoint, all I see are a list of disjointed numbers and statements, none of them cited, taken out of context and clearly not evaluated critically. That doesn't make for a convincing argument or one worth engaging with.
Posted by: Nick Anthis | July 9, 2008 2:42 PM
Nick Anthis -
I would imagine that there will be subjects that you do not have a background in, does that mean that you can not be aware of things about that subject? There is an element of common sense, morality and ethics too. I am disturbed that some people consider that they have the right to inflict suffering on animals simply becasue they do not have the power of speech and are helpless to stop them. What does that make us? I find it all despicable to be quite honest and to think that experts are saying that it is totally unnecessary makes the business even worse.
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 2:44 PM
Dzd - I have listed the source also......
Nick Anthis - well that is one way to avoid answering isnt it?
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 2:46 PM
It has been said that there are two kinds of people that support vivisecion, those that have a vested interest and those that do not know enough about it.
I am neither...
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 2:48 PM
Lindy,
I'm not going to go through all of your disjointed statements point by point, because (1) you don't source any of your statements, (2) these have all been countered before, and you're not saying anything new, and (3) I actually have better things to do, believe it or not (like writing my PhD thesis!).
In fact, this comment thread is starting to sound increasingly like an ALF press release. You don't happen to be an ALF press officer, Lindy, do you?
Posted by: Nick Anthis | July 9, 2008 2:55 PM
Lindy- please comment on your view of this statement made by your colleague, Jerry Vlasak. Do you agree? It helps to put your view of human life in prospective.
"And I don't think you'd have to kill � assassinate � too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. And I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human animals."
thanks.
Posted by: Peter | July 9, 2008 2:56 PM
Dzd
did you read it properly? I did put the source!
yes, amongst other things I do receive emails. They contain valid newspaper reports, scientific journals, info from government sites, information from the FDA, NICE, notes from discussions and debates, doctors, professors, etc, etc. So what on earth is your point about emails and why do you assume that it debases the information? Cheap shots? its from perfeclty valid sources. same old same old.....
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 3:00 PM
I am nothing whatsoever to do with the Alf. Talk about cheap shots! I am just a concerned citizen that uses her own mind to find things out. Funny how the topic has turned isnt it? with nothing said about the actual tests. I have come to learn that pros don't like to discuss this subject in any detail and the reasons for that seem clear. I repeat myself again, I DID put the source. VIN
Posted by: Lindy | July 9, 2008 3:05 PM
Lindy, that list you have is mostly rubbish. Some of the claims are nicely duebunked at http://www.pro-test.org.uk/MythsJan2008.doc. I daresay others are debunked elsewhere, though a few appear really obscure!
Oh and Lindy the point about Thalidomide is that the only way that the teratogenic effect could have been observed before it was given to pregnant women was by testing it on pregnant animals, there neither were nor are any other tests available that could identify the problem. As a consequence of the Thalidomide tragedy the regulations were changed to require that drugs are tested on pregnant animals (following a review of the testing procedure). While the animals are not identical to humans they are a lot better than nothing, which is what you're proposing!
If any of my family had been deformed by Thalidomide I'd be very angry at the fact that it was not tested on pregnant animals before it was given to pregnant mothers!
Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 6:02 PM
p.s. I love the little bit of anti-vaccination that crept into Lindy's list;-)
It's not that surprising given that one source listed is "the great Dr. Hadwen". You can find out a little more about this leading light of the campaign against germ theory and vaccination at http://www.pro-test.org.uk/MythsJan2008.doc
The quote about less than 2% of human illnesses being found (naturally) in animals also strikes me as complete cobblers, though it perhaps it might be explained by the inclusion of many rare diseases that have been documented in humans but never looked for in animals.
Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 6:15 PM
The issue here is not the absence of a source, but the source that you used. Is this "VIN" peer-reviewed? Open to editorial? Or is it merely a laundry list that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can use to create verbal or writing sound bites?
As a private citizen, it is your right, and in effect, your duty to question the effectiveness of these experimental models. But know this...every model has been reviewed and questioned by the scientific community. Thousands of submitted proposals go through the questioning process you yourself are undertaking. And even before those proposals see the light of day, if the experimental techniques do not pass the internal review boards of the home institutions, they do not continue. The peer review process in any field is difficult, as it is "easier to squeeze water from a rock" than it is to get funding in this frugal time. So though you may question the role of animals in experiments, those experiments are not done without specific goals and detailed humane treatments outline in advance.
Yes, humane. Possibly a foreign thought, but the animals that I deal with are treated humanely. Clean cages, plenty of food and water. Twelve hours in which they are not to be disturbed. Any surgical treatments are done with anesthesia, and postoperativly administered drugs for pain treatment and to prevent infection. We constantly work to prevent undue stress or harm to these animals.
Finally, your comment about the lack of "proper tests" is missed. Prior to the mid 90's, few if any tests were preformed on females. What could be a horrid mistake was the assumption that any and all effects seen in male rats/rabbits/etc. would be similar in female. Thusly, your thalidomide effects. The FDA assumed such a problem, as pointed out above. The point here is that without gender specific animal testing, it would be impossible to predict if any drugs, or any pathophysiological condition, existed separately in males and females and if treatment regiments need to be altered in concert with specific gender groups.
For clarity, I have a PhD in Neurophysiology.
Posted by: James | July 9, 2008 6:57 PM
For a VIN that _is_ peer-edited, try Veterinary Information Network.
And I'm sorry, but whatever random source from where you plucked the only 2% of disease being comparable from non-human animals to humans is grossly mistaken. Just ask every major medical university that trains comparative pathologists or veterinary pathologists. Do humans not get influenza? Bacterial meningitis? Pancreatic cancer? I think they do.
All this arguing gets a little ridiculous. You kids who claim to not want to take any drug that's been through animal testsing, well, go take your non-FDA-approved vitamins and nutraceuticals because, as a veterinary student, I can guarantee you that every other drugs has been through animal testing.
You'd probably sleep better at night if you stopped imagining that animal labs are like abattoirs. Every animal testing facility I've been to has been like paradise for the animals, especially in Europe... almost a Garden of Eden you might say. They get more play time and better veterinary care than most pets in the U.S.
Posted by: Meredith M. Clancy | July 9, 2008 10:37 PM
What can we get from animal test that we can't do with other tests?
Ask a researcher:
Why do you test on animals?
Because they are like humans.
Why do you not give animals right?
Because they are not like humans.
Fucking contradiction. It's an industrial complex just the same as the military or prison industrial complexes.
I agree that there are different types of research, such as ones for cancer and ones for cosmetics (the latter really makes my blood boil), but all these tests can be replaced with ones that don't involve animals. But wait, the breeding companies which basically own these labs would lose a lot of money and stop funding (it's more complicated I know, but this is it in a nutshell).
XVX for life, R.A.S.H. 'til death.
Posted by: Hann | July 10, 2008 12:48 AM
That's right Hann, all the doctors and scientists just do research on animals because they want to maintain the profits of animal breeders. Of course, it's all so obvious now. I also like the argument that a handful of scientists and doctors opposed to animal research is supposed to bolster the anti-vivisection case, but the vast majority that support animal research are just dupes or vested interests and don't count.
I'm curious as to how our anti-vivisectionist friends think something like the deep brain stimulation techniques of Tipu Aziz (boo, hiss) could have been developed without using animals (scroll down to the bottom of this post).
Posted by: pj | July 10, 2008 3:57 AM
In my last post I accidentally included the wrong link, the quick introduction to Dr. Hadwen is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Hadwen.
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2008 5:02 AM
For me, and for many other scientists, studying animals, whether in laboratories, breeding colonies, zoological gardens, or in nature, is not just about human health and certainly is not about financial gain. Such study is essential to the understanding of everything about animals and their health, as well as their behavior, ecology, and evolution. The knowledge gained by studying animals helps us to appreciate them more and to better understand ourselves and our origins. Of course, it is very appropriate to be concerned about the methods used to study humans and other animals--to ensure careful and humane treatment, and to attempt to learn as much as possible from each individual. Let us not forget that humans are primate mammals. We have much to learn from the creatures with whom we share the planet. Let us do so creatively and kindly, but let us be sure to learn what we can, for their benefit and for ours. Ignorance is not the answer to suffering.
Posted by: Joe Erwin | July 10, 2008 6:32 AM
Its really nice to see a robust discussion of this topic here.
A couple questions occurred to me and I'd like to hear anyone's response:
1) Would we all agree that non-human animals are not capable of experience the same ammount of suffering as humans are? Like we can experience more suffering than chimps, who can experience more than ants, who can experience more than protists or bacteria (if at all?). Also, would anyone agree that human infants can probably not experience the same level of suffering as adults? How about the severely mentally retarded? And if so, would experiments on babies be acceptable in any circumstances?
2) Is it worth it to cause suffering to one creature (or person) in order to prevent more suffering for others? For example, I would probably kill one person to save many (although the future affects of that act on society as a whole would have to be taken into account). Would you? Where would you all draw the lines?
3) Is there any any-bit objective way to measure suffering? I've heard of people measuring fishes responses to electric shock and finding similar plateaus of stress responses. Is this a good measure (even if the actual suffering AMOUNT is different)?
4) To those who would not can animals to suffer in any way ever, where would you draw that "animal" line? At primates? Mammals? Vertebrates? Creatures with brains? Just nervous tissue (ie some worms I believe only have ganglia)? How about single celled organisms? Or viruses?
Posted by: Eloheim | July 10, 2008 10:20 AM
I have a pretty simple, maybe simplistic, concept of ethics with regard to treatment of others, be they adult humans, immature or impaired humans, nonhuman apes, other primates, other mammals, other vertebrates, or invertebrates (or even plants, ecological communities, whatever....).
The concept is: Treat others with due consideration.
While that sounds simple or even simplistic, it gets pretty complecated pretty quickly. To treat others with due consideration, one must understand something about them--and the more, the better. This implies a need for reliable and valid knowledge to inform understanding and appreciation. What is our most effective way of obtaining reliable knowledge? Scientific method. Beyond that, there is a need to consider how one interacts with another from the perspective of the other. This is challenging, and it involves what is often called "empathy." Placing one's self in the position of another and imagining the interaction from that perspective is a subjective operation, not an objective "scientific" activity. Such subjectivity is open to all sorts of irrational and emotional influence, but it is essential, I think, to the process of "due consideration." Either pure objectivity or pure subjectivity is not likely to be a sufficient basis for interacting ethically with another.
So, with regard to item 1) above, where does it say that scientifically studying a human or other animal causes pain or suffering? Can we agree that interacting with humans and other animals in ways that do not involve pain or suffering is generally acceptable? Being studied scientifically can involve pain and suffering--like many other aspects of life--but it does not necessarily do so.
Some scientific research involves observations or surveys. Some involves manipulation of independent variables and observation or measurement of dependent variables. The latter kind of study is called an "experiment." If no pain nor suffering is involved in this process, it is hard to see how this is unethical with regard to human or nonhuman research subjects.
Now, if there is pain or discomfort or suffering involved, is it not relevant whether the research is intended to relieve discomfort or not? If there is the potential for pain, is anesthesia used? Or if there is pain, is it relived by administration of an analgesic?
If the study reults in a physical, mental, or behavioral change, is that change permanent or transitory? Is the change harmful, helpful, therapeutic, neutral, what?
So, there is a simple answer. Scientifically studying human and nonhuman animals is important and valuable--even ethically essential--as an alternative to ignorance and failure to act rationally when knowledge would inform appropriate action.
Now, how one acquires knowledge requires very careful consideration, and action appropriate to the organisms involved, the urgency of the situation, and other contextual issues and information.
Is the scientific study of humans and other animals ethical? Sometimes yes and sometimes no.
Is prohibition of the scientific study of humans and other animals ethical? No. While some methods are unacceptable under some circumstances, a blanket prohibition of scientific research is blatently irrational, unethical, and unacceptable. Ignorance is not an acceptable alternative to knowledge as a basis for ethical behavior.
Posted by: Joe Erwin | July 10, 2008 11:12 AM
I've never really got Singer's point about people with learning disabilities - to claim intellectual equivalence between, say, someone with Down's syndrome, and other animals shows a complete lack of familiarity with learning disability.
Babies, on the other hand, I guess he has a point.
Posted by: pj | July 10, 2008 11:52 AM
And yet, within the history of scientific comparative studies of how learning occurs, it was the discovery and description of "learning sets" (that is, formation of learning strategies) that led to effective advances in educating people with Down's syndrome. That discovery was made by Harry Harlow by studying rhesus monkeys, and was reported as "Learning to Learn." This was before his classic work on emotional development called "Learning to Love." And, of course, scientific studies of human infants and people with Down's syndrome have demonstrated a number of therapeutic approaches in human development and education. Such research is not immoral; in fact, failure to do such work would be profoundly unethical.
Posted by: Joe Erwin | July 10, 2008 12:19 PM
At the risk of prolonging a sterile and repetitive debate about whether animal research works, a good source of evidence that it does - backed up by references to the medical and scientific literature - can be found at http://www.animalresearch.info. This site welcomes contributions from working scientists. It is of course moderated to exclude the antics of the cut-and-paste antivivisection propagandists that we see above.
Posted by: BJ | July 11, 2008 5:21 AM
With regards to Joe E.'s response to my Post #50 above (with the open questions): I agree 100% with your general ideas of treating living things with respect.
In my opinion, the amount suffering of differing species and individuals must occur on a gradient. I know for a fact that I can suffer greatly (and feel great pleasure too, for that matter), and I take it as an article of faith that other people can too. However, it?s obvious, as illustrated by evolutionary history, that there is no discrete difference between human and non-human. At one point in our history there was a creature mid-way between homo sapien and our (ape) ancestor. It is possible, I suppose, that some certain gene mutation caused us to feel suffering (or just a MUCH greater amount of it) all the sudden. In other words, one of our ancestors? offspring would be capable of much greater suffering than his/her immediate parent. This seems unlikely to me though, because many non-human animals exhibit very similar stress responses and behaviors as we do.
Therefore, we are capable of more suffering than other apes, which can experience more than rodents, which can suffer more than worms, than bacteria, etc. However, this does lead to the obvious question: where do you draw the line for the capability to suffer AT ALL? I really doubt a single-celled organism suffers at all, as we know it, and a sponge probably doesn't suffer much either. But at some point in the past those single-celled organisms gradually BECAME those sponges. And to go back even farther, in the origin of life, organic molecules had to come together to become the first cells. Does this mean in some extremely small sense that even atoms and particles can suffer? I'll admit it seems absurd.
Also, by the same token, we all have gone through development from a single cell to adults within our lifetime. So I would assume we couldn't suffer when we were just a few cells, but when in that gradual development to adulthood did the capacity emerge?
Of course, I believe it all has to be a gradual scale of capability of suffering. But is there any way to quantify that AMMOUNT of suffering? I would hope someday brain scans and advances in neurology could shed some light on this. A simple way to measure amount of suffering, now, though, could be to give animals choices between different painful or pleasurable alternatives, and see what they choose. For example, if a rat had to endure either 1 or 2 Volts of electric shock to get food, I would assume they would choose the former. [Note: I'm certainly not supportive of actually doing those sorts of experiments.] This does bring up the problem, though, that the animal must act purely on their MEMORY of the suffering, so if the larger electric shock has a side-effect of erasing the memory of the suffering some how (use your imagination/other examples), then the animal would choose the 2 Volts even though it hurts more.
Another question I've always wondered, is what is the scale between pain and pleasure like? Is it with suffering on one end (-100) and total ecstasy at zero (0)? In other words, pleasure is really just the LACK OF SUFFERING (much like Buddhist thought if I remember). OR, is it pain on one end (-100) and pleasure on the other (+100), with lack of feeling in the middle (0)? This seems more likely to me because we would all go through a little bit of suffering to get a lot of pleasure. Or is there even a difference between the two scales, other than how they are described? Another possibility would be the opposite of the first idea, with pleasure at the far end (+100) and severe pain at zero (0). Of course, I think the first and last scales I mentioned would be equivalent, unless they were based upon a exponential or logarithmic function (like the [amount of blood to certain areas of the brain] = [pain^2] + [pleasure], if pain was seen as more important than pleasure). This makes some sense to me because, personally at least, there is no amount of promised future pleasure for which I would endure the worst torture imaginable, so [pain > pleasure]. I really haven't thought all this stuff out though, as if you couldn't tell.
Also, if you can't tell, I'm very utilitarian in my ethical reasoning. And even though we cannot measure pain/pleasure objectively right now, and instead have to go by the best indicators we have, I dearly hope one day it will be possible.
(One more thing I remembered with regards to the pain/pleasure scales above: If you believe that pleasure is actually good in itself (i.e. not just a lack of suffering), then you should support as much multiplication and reproduction as possible, assuming the lives of the individuals are good, right? This is so because all those lives would increase the overall pleasure (at least up until the point where over-population led to more suffering than pleasure in their lives). ON THE OTHER HAND, if you believe that pleasure is really only a lack of suffering, you would not support infinite procreation, because it could only increase the amount of overall suffering in existence. Am I right?)
I had a little time on my hands if you can?t tell. : )
And please feel free to e-mail me [eloheim7@gmail.com] with any thoughts as well.
Peace
Posted by: Eloheim | July 11, 2008 7:55 AM